Work Ethic

I was listening to an NPR. Something about food stamps and how there is a debate about how giving them encourages people not to work. Then Just crossed my mind…

Who cares?

Why are we caring whether someone works or gets things for free?

I wonder if it really has anything to do with being a good person. I would think that my concern around whether or not a person works has more to do with the power they wield in potential then it does to do with contributing to society.

Think about it. If a person doesn’t have to work and get things for free, what am I worried about ?

If I remove my idealistic sense that everyone should work or else they’re a lazy bastard, then really all I’m left with is that this person will have a bunch of time to get mischievous and might actually do some things with power that would affect my life in a way that I would not want it affected.

Because, why should I care whether or not someone works?

That just keeps rolling around in my head.

What is the idea behind Congress’s debate over whether or not giving people money keeps them from going and looking for a job?

I mean, I seriously doubt that anyone is thinking that someone needs to work so they feel better about themselves.

Somehow I feel that is not the motivation for getting people to be motivated to work a job and make money, that is, so they don’t collect money for not doing work.

What do you think?

The logistics of ethics

This topic seems to cross my mind somewhat often. I feel that if anyone is ethical, and considerate of what that is and what it means, eventually they would have to consider that it really has nothing to do with what one is choosing or what a group of human beings might opt for evolutionarily speaking to perpetuate the species.

Of course, one does indeed consider ethics on this evolution airy type of cost benefit scale, but then I think someone would ultimately have to consider how it is very interesting that human beings would come up with a theory of ethics that is beneficial. That is, that it is quite a redundant proposal.

It would seem from this very simple consideration that there is nothing about ethics that is coming about because it’s beneficial to our species. Rather, it seems that ethics is some thing that we use to justify our existence and our activity more than really something that we use to make decisions upon. Of course, we make decisions, and of course we would call these decisions ethical and we can come up with all sorts of theories about it.

However, if we think of ethics as something that indeed arises in the universe as such, we might be obliged to think of it as a force that is occurring in which human beings are involved, but not necessarily creating, which is to say, as though ex Nilo. Or however you spell that.

We might consider that ethics arises as a logistical solution to existential problems. For example; it is not just that individuals identify with a cultural group and so see Other as a threat, as an evolutionary reductionary force Rather, that the Other never disappears, and so the very sense of ethical threat is an operation of ideological consolidation of Other, inclusion, a compensation for the contradiction that is arising in the ideal of a cultural/ religious ethics. That is, that no matter how we might wish or work to destroy the Other, it persists as a force that must be dealt with in a non contradictory manner.

Posting: On Idealistic Ethics, Nihilism, and the Analyticity of ‘Black Maleness’: A reply to Tommy Curry | Patrick F Bloniasz – Academia.edu

(43) (PDF) On Idealistic Ethics, Nihilism, and the Analyticity of ‘Black Maleness’: A reply to Tommy Curry | Patrick F Bloniasz – Academia.edu
— Read on www.academia.edu/45689398/On_Idealistic_Ethics_Nihilism_and_the_Analyticity_of_Black_Maleness_A_reply_to_Tommy_Curry

— Comment-rely to come.

cancel culture and ‘bad religion’ – BBC News

The musician believes political correctness online is having an “asphyxiating effect” on society.
— Read on www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53768254

——- and of course, my commentary:

That’s cool. On the other side of it though, I think the ideal where everyone just gets to say whatever they want and everyone is in awareness and excepting of their own emotional reactions, is a utopian pipe dream.

Lol

Wow I didn’t know he was 62 years old. That’s insane. Lol.

It’s interesting though, I think this idea that has accompanied the web and Internet which sees free speech and free expression as naturally extending to the infinity of Internet access, it’s self is a kind of religion.

I think the idea of free speech and acceptance of difference is much easier when you don’t have the full range of human experience in your face, or the potential there of.

It’s easy to live a tiny life that only encounters other people if you travel, or through the newspaper or through the TV news, and say that we should all have free speech and freedom of expression.

It’s a little bit more difficult when you have every type of speech and every type of expression available at a click.

I think both extremes are two types of religious expression.

What we have as the left and the right, and I think the myopia over each is really the manifestation of our present political climate.

And I love Nick Cave, but Nick Cave as an old man, I’m not really sure of.😁

He’s definitely the artist type, And now he’s an older artist who thinks society should be made up of a bunch of intellectual artists.

Well, actually maybe the left and the right are switching places. Said that the left has become so left that it’s starting to implement its liberal strategies as a kind of dogma.

And then it’s the right who’s actually taking on more liberal ideas, American ideals about free speech and letting everyone say what they want and not care what anyone else feels. Like, we are all adults and just grow some balls would you? And don’t be so sensitive!

But you know what, what I think kind of addresses both of these ends is something that neither of the extremes really understand.

*

It really extends from race relations, critical race theory. The idea is that the institutional/systemic norms (we could even bring in Foucault here) are made by white people. And so to be inconsiderate of other people under the assumption that “we’re all human beings, and just grow up already” is to deny the lived experience of people that fall outside of the norms, namely, people of color, but really anyone who doesn’t fit into the operative “top down” norms. 

This is the experience of America, though, and when you get out side of the generalized Americans and United States white culture into other countries, the hard line of critical race theory seems to meet some contradiction. However, the more we look at what is contradicting, the more we begin to hear voices that confirm what we are finding is the case in America, or the United States in particular actually, actually holds water across the globe.

So, the issue really isn’t between the “you need to be considerate of others”, side of things, and the “just get over it and stop being so sensitive” side of things.

But it’s more about having a realization about how the norms of society itself, and now I mean global culture in the widest sense, has been shaped by white identity.

And we call this identity “modern capitalism”. But even if we have a difficult time seeing history as the history of white capitalism, It doesn’t take very much to look around the globe and it’s history to see that it is always been lighter skinned people who developed the privilege, and it’s the darker skinned people who end up being oppressed, in poverty, excluded from what is “civilized” — yeah, like a dogma. Exactly like a religion. We can go even back to what we know as the first civilizations. It is pretty well known that even in the pre-history of India it was the Aryan races that came down and subjugated the darker skinned people of the subcontinent of India. The Aryan people are known to have lighter skin; And they were from the north.

(Please, some historian and/or anthropologist please correct me if I’m wrong!)

We need only Paulo Freire’s Formulation of oppression: both the oppressor and the oppressed play the game of oppression. And what typically happens is that the oppressed are so repressed that when I offered a chair at the oppressors table, playing by the oppressors rules, most gladly take it, and thus end up oppressing their own people, their own culture, their own kind, so to speak.

So the idea of this left and right Politicalization of this basic and fundamental issue is really a misunderstanding of the issue, actually identity politics.

Actually both sides are only being able to see what they are able to see, all the while proposing that they see the “whole big picture”. This is where the rift appears, in the blind spot that neither one can see nor really want to see because they both view their ideas as “liberal”, as in, having to do with liberty and freedom.

But what they are really developing is a kind of religious dogma which colors of the world for the benefit of that particular side.

And I don’t mean to use the word “color” just as a insignificant adjective. I literally mean it in the sense of critical race Theory that both sides who are involved with their sense of white righteousness actually color the world through their moral and ethical imperative of which they are incapable of seeing outside.





x

The New Philosophy

The Moment of Decisive Significance took more than 4 years to write and publish, and it still needs edits. The Philosophical Hack the first and second parts took a little less time, partly because of how Nathaniel approached it.  Actually, The Philosophical Hack is not yet complete, so all and all, for all 6 parts, will probably take even longer than 4 years — and being that Nathaniel undertakes other projects, the last 4 parts will probably come out perhaps in 2030. 🙂

This is true philosophy to me.  Yes, philosophy can be understood as a commodity, a product, a piece of consumer good, but that is not what I think good philosophy does and is in truth.  In reality maybe it appears as something different…

Philosophy takes time, it is out of time, and it is thus timeless. 

It arises in time and out of time, but through arising in this manner, it is essentially of two ontological natures.

One of the points the Kierkegaard makes in his book “Fear and Trembling” is that Abraham had a faith that is beyond him; Kierkegaard says that he could never make the move of Abraham and, basically, this is why a person is in despair, sinful, as he says, in despair to will to be oneself.  Kierkegaard thus uses the literary figure of the Biblical Abraham to show the irony involved of Being a Knight of Faith.

His point is that when one is willing to be oneself never does she have the faith of Abraham, and thus, for those who might be so inclined (but not everyone), the best someone who is willing can do is live as a knight of infinite resignation. His point is so long as one is willing, that is, is open to the possibility of being oneself, as opposed to actually being oneself, then that person lives in despair.

Indeed this is the modern dilemma of the individual.

Time Spiral

 

My point is that so long as one is in time, they have faith in themselves and are working towards an end which is always ethically compromised: They have faith (hope) that the world holds a place for them to Be, but they never are quite sure how they are supposed to be (how am I proposed in context is the quandary of modern mental health).  The irony, though, is that one must indeed live in time and be ethical (in the sense of Being involved with ethics), but that that this is not all that one is and does.  One does not live in a condition where she must always choose upon ethics.  This is the point that Kierkegaard makes of Abraham.

Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical? 

We find the answer through his books, and the answer is yes.  The reason for this is that Abraham’s activity was not for his time, and yet in that he was indeed there, a human being doing actions, his actions were not ethical. Indeed, the point that Kierkegaard makes is that the ethics of Abraham were vested in God, and that God thus makes the world ethical by virtue of the absurdity that is not acting in time: Abraham has faith by virtue of the absurd.

Ironically, Slavoj Zizek, a contemporary social critic and philosopher, makes the same point when he says that the subject always acts too late, that by the very ontological nature of the modern subject of ideology, action is always reactionary.  Similarly Alain Badiou says the best political move is to not act politically, to abstain from politics. The revolutionary move is thus to move out of time, and to bring Kierkegaard back in, to act by virtue of the absurd such that what is ethical arises out of the act, as opposed to the ontological act Being involved with an attempt to act ethically.

The condition which evidences this ontological contradiction is what Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as well, call angst, which was first translated into English, by Walter Lawrie, I think, as dread, but then later authors (Hong and Hong, May) call anxiety.  The philosopher who arises out of time to act finds herself in a state of anxiety because she still appears on the scene within the ethical universe, albeit, one that is being manifested by the absurd situation of her being out of time. This is particularly salient in our 21st century because we find that this is a condition of knowledge, and not a condition of every human being who thinks thoughts.

  • The question that I have been grappling with is how does one who is so out of time do the work of art (or of love, Heidegger, Kierkegaard) which is motivated through the state of anxiety? (Also see Harman’s Dante’s Broken Hammer.)
  • How does one arise in time out of time?

My next project will thus be to produce a work of philosophy which covers the whole breadth of philosophical knowledge while at once mentioning neither a known philosopher or author, nor conceptual philosophical tropes, that is, terms which have assumed (privileged) dense philosophical definition.

That is what I am going to attempt, anyways.  🙂

Good luck!

 

Well Then: Life and Death. Comparing COVID-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is like Comparing Apples to Oranges – Scientific American Blog Network

Comparing COVID-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is like Comparing Apples to Oranges – Scientific American Blog Network
— Read on blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

——————–:::: So, the numbers we were using are perhaps not an accurate comparison. We should have to wait for the scientific rebottling, if there is one. 

Yet I still stand by the questioning upon a human death and a human living death.

How do we compare the saving of X amount of lives who will have otherwise died of coronavirus, compared to X number of lives that are unfathomably changed such that the rest of their lives are (in fact, now, and in the future will be) misery?

Is the most valuable human thing life itself? Why?

I think that is probably the most valid and pertinent question of modern society that we could possibly think of.

It’s like the Trolly Problem, but with actual stakes, that is, stakes that go beyond mere intellectualism. Stakes that go into actually having to make a decision and continue to live your life with it. 

What is the answer?

Does human life hold value above everything else? And: what is your reason for this position?



But again: I’m not saying that we need to get rid of the restrictions or anything like that. I am totally agreeing with the cautionary manner by which we are proceeding back into this new normal,

—-

Some times I just gotta take it the whole way.

🌈

—-

Risk and Covid-19

I’m going to take a risk. This risk that I’m going to take has to do with a view on Covid that is not particularly popular right now. 

I imagine it is very possible that I could get all sorts of hate replies from it and my followers will go from, like, seven down to, like, two.

So first, the disclaimer.

I am in no way mean to devalue any human life, nor to demean or objectify an individuals suffering from sickness or any sort of suffering, nor to reprimand loved ones involved with that person and how they are probably and justifiably upset.

Let me repeat that paragraph. And go back and read it again and take it to heart as to my actual intention, where my view is coming from, before reactions might arise.

*

Here’s a video that I saw on the news earlier today.

Now, in the context of the reported devastation and visceral fear that surrounds most people in our world society, if we are ethical then we watch that video and our fears and emotions are confirmed. We think, “oh my God! That child might die from Covid and the family has no idea where it came from. And humanity is in severe dire straits with this virus! Oh my god that’s terrible and sad. Masks might not be sufficient. Sequestering at home and staying away from loved ones and friends might not be sufficient. This devastating killer disease had made it into a house that was doing everything they were supposed to! COVID-19 is very terrible and I’m so scared and oh my gosh somehow I also feel confirmed in the measures that we are taking, because we are all in this together.”

And we watch the video, and at least on the news it was reported that the kid has fully recovered. And thank God. I’m absolutely happy that this child got over the sickness and didn’t die and I’m very happy for his family.

Consider this:

The last time I had the flu, I had flu A. This was four months ago. I went from a sore throat on Saturday at work, to coming home fatigued and a little bit stuffy headed with a headache and fairly sure that I had a cold. Waking up the next day feeling like shit and by noon on Sunday I took the advice of my wife and I went to the urgent care and I had 103.4 temperature. I felt like absolute hell. I could barely sit up, I actually did drive to the doctors and back home. I had a nagging cough that I could not stop coughing and so that whole night at first night, and even the second night, I barely slept because I couldn’t stop coughing. And by the third day my temperature had gotten down into normal area and all in all I was out of work for I think five days.

My question goes to why are we not posting videos of people when they have the flu?

What virologists and the people who are studying the virus seem to be discovering is that Covid 19 does not have a significantly greater mortality rate than the flu, and likewise generally the same number of people get positive for Covid as they do the flu. I think the difference between the two is the contagion possibility. It’s something like the flu infects 1.5 people per infected person, and Covid infects 3 people per one infected person, or something like that.

If you watch that video that I posted a few before this, made by one of the doctors who is studying Covid globally, he asks the question if all this reactivity, all these precautions that we are putting on society to prevent a sickness that has the same pattern, the same morbidity, the same infection proportion as the flu, is worth all the secondary problems that are arising because of these social precautions.

He talks about many that I’ve already thought about being in the mental health field:

— Alcoholism is the first one that came to mind for me. If someone was yet potentially an alcoholic, who still went to their work and was functional and didn’t drink at work and was otherwise a good parent say, now is not working and is at home with his family members who they don’t really see that often nor have to involve themselves with, and it’s probably been that way for years — now all of a sudden all the family members have to get along under the added stress of no income. Having to deal with each other all day long where as before they had various natural outlets. Now that individual can go get a beer or scotch or whiskey anytime they want to throughout the day. So I thought of how many more alcoholics are going to be created because of these precautions that we’ve put in place. And how is all this alcoholism going to affect the family and society over the next 5,10, or 20 years of these people now attempting to get and stay sober and get back to the productive lives?

The next ones I thought of is

– depression

– suicide

– anxiety

Then:

— spousal abuse and domestic violence.

The doctor in the video points out how Covid will be solved at least in the next year or so,but the victims of domestic violence, the individuals as well as their families are going to be affected for the rest of their lives in a way that Covid will just be a thing that was an interesting phenomenon.

–Child abuse.

Here we have a parent whose ability to parent is based on them not being around their family member for at least a third of the day, not including the third that they’re sleeping also.  The doctor points out That the rate of child abuse is up. How many decades is that child going to have to deal with this short period of time? How much social money, social services, psychological effort is going to go have to go into this child as an adult getting better and hopefully not implementing abuse Upon thier own children?

And then the one that I hadn’t even really thought of that really stuck out to me:

–Child sexual abuse. 

Parents And friends and family members are starting to more frequently abuse the children of their own household sexually.

Why?

I am not making the argument that somehow we should let everything go back to normal, or whatever.

But I am bringing up the very valid question about what trade-offs are we making based on fear and ignorance?

And what about the mom who made that video and posted it? What kind of trauma did she go through and thinking that her child had any more potential of dying then if he would’ve had the flu? Would she have been so nervous if her child had flu a, for example? Would she have entertained the possibility that her child was going to die if it was the flu?



The Nature of Evil: Humans, Coronavirus and Addiction

Rolling around lately in my mind has been strange juxtapositionings of ethical dynamics.

This started because I began to ponder statistics of human deaths. And then pondering the emotional response to the coronavirus thing, an interesting situation presents itself.

Let me see if I can spell it out in a simple way without getting too long in the post.

Recently I posted a few statistics about other types of deaths that occur in our day. What strikes me about comparing the number of deaths for any particular topic is that they are all relatively similar, at least, similar in regard to that really only a small fraction of people actually die while the overwhelming majority of people actually live.

So I had to keep present in my mind a certain kind of ethics in thinking about these human beings. While I was pondering these kind of abstract intellectual numbers I kept having to remind myself that I’m supposed to be feeling bad because people are dying. I had to remind myself that I cry almost every day because one person I was very close to died not too long ago– but not from coronavirus.

Nevertheless. Let’s just ponder a few large categories of major killers in our global society. Cancer; murder; drugs. Let’s do drugs — the category. Lol.

Those are the categories I considered to compare to coronavirus. And I think I conveyed in another post that I talked to a doctor friend of mine about statistics having to do with these categories and coronavirus, and he quickly pointed out at least so far as the drug overdoses that drugs involve a choice where as coronavirus doesn’t have anything to do with choice except that we can try to take precaution so we don’t get it.

This struck me as particularly insensitive, ignorant (coming from a doctor just goes to show that a medical degree does not necessarily denote great intelligence) and basically judgemental about the people who die from drug overdose.

And this continuing to be rolling around in my head, I was struck by the contrast in peoples attitudes towards people that are dying from coronavirus.

In short, people who die from drug addiction are blamed and are viewed as bad people. Even though people are getting more intelligent and empathetic about drugs and addiction and substance use disorders, I would have to say that the overwhelming majority of people are very ignorant and self-righteous about alcoholism and drug addiction and view people that have such a problem as somehow morally compromised if not bankrupt.

Whereas people that die from coronavirus are not viewed as bad people.

And this was still rolling around together in my mind when it dawned on me that the ethics really falls into that something which is completely random, e.g. the coronavirus which comes up utterly because of an act of nature, is really having nothing to do with any sort of blame that we can place on humans except that we were doing human things– We view the deaths and human toll that occurs because of this random act of nature containing more “ethical energy”. And I mean this in the sense that if I am not sad or disturbed or worried about the great potential for human deaths that are occurring because of coronavirus then people judge me as unethical and somehow inhuman.

Even as the death toll presently may be less than the death toll that is taking place during the same time of people that overdose from drugs.

And the tragedy of people dying from something that is pretty much human created, which is to say, that drug addiction is really created because human beings synthesized distillates which affect human beings more radically than their natural state within plants, but as well with synthesized and created drugs from scratch that are more dangerous and ugly and deadly for human beings then anything we could find the natural sphere.

Yet if I’m not concerned about all these people dying from drug overdose, let alone the social devastation it is indeed creating everywhere, and from being a drug addict, I am not ethically condemned in general even though more people overall are dying from this human made problem.

It seems to me that peoples’ ethical value placed upon human beings is greater than when it’s something natural or something that arises completely innocent of human activity. Whereas if human beings are involved in the tragedy, then as a society we don’t care as much.

That strikes me as contradictory and quite ironic:


This odd ethical behavior reminds me of a book I started to read which told of how particularly terrible acts of nature used to be considered evil, where as only recently, say since the beginning of the 20thcentury , we refer the name of evil to only what human beings do.



STATS and FACTS:

you compare.

Opioid deaths in United States.

Coronavirus Deaths worldwide

Is this a New Idea?

The psychologogist who shall not be named just pops up on my You Tube “you might like”.

Listen to it; its only 10 minutes.

Though it sounds like Peterson is making a significant contribution to the discussion, but is her really?

Let me see if I can parse this out, kind of stream of my thinking here…

I have not seem the whole discussion so I can’t really know, but if you listen the the response from the other philosopher, the “yessss” that we hear right at the end, the part that the You tuber who posted this thinks is a slam dunk (I think) — or he was making fun of Peterson?  I don’t really know.

…if one is philosophical informed or at least interrogative of her world, then we might hear this “yesss” less as a “you got me there Peterson” and more as a “yesss, but we already know this, and Im not sure why you are sounding like its new news.”

What I mean is, I think Peterson definitely thinks that he is making a point that sticks it to the other dude.

But, the point that Peterson is making everyone already knows, or should know if they have thought about the history of religion at all.

The point he is making is that the very idea of goodness, even without all the God metaphysics and such, without all the “religion”, argues that there must be a sort of messianic essence or foundation to the being of human.

Now. I am not a very smart dude.  I mean, I am smart, I think, but Im no scholar.  But I have been very interested in religion for most of my life, and it did not really take me very long to realize the coincidence of ethics and the appearance of religion in history. As well, when one begins to read philosophy — Hegel, in particular, I think, but I could be wrong — people have already noted that Christianity is the pinnacle of the practical ethical reasoning of humanity.  The on-the-ground of Reason in relation to ethics (goodness), in a dialectical relation with the natural world, whatever that is, produces a certain sensibility of religious reckoning that, basically, culminates in Christianity.  Somehow, I feel it has to do with Adorno ? Who was it? I can’t think right now, but Zizek has mentioned it, Im sure: The merger of Athens and Jerusalem, one author put it.

I feel like I even described this somewhere in this blog, but maybe not. Yet, one merely has to look at the history of religion, its development through time, civilizations as such –it really doesn’t take much — to see that the rationale of reasoned “God-things” cannot go anywhere else once Christianity is come upon.  We can definitely go back or sidewards, or round and round, but there is simply no other manner of discerning the relationship given God(s)- Goddess(es)-Man (woman)-world once we reach Christianity. This is to say, that every type of belief about the relational triad for knowledge has already been done.

The thing is, this “end” of Christianity does not mean that it is the best or that it must be true. In my opinion, it only means that we have found one parameter toward the finding out what the human being is by what it does.

In any case, it is difficult for me to imagine that those other philosophers did not already know this. I find it difficult to believe that Peterson’s argument had any real effect for the discussion, I mean, in opening up some significance. I would be interesting to hear more of the talk.

OK. So what does this mean?

Consider who Peterson’s audience is.

Consider it.

In general, it is medium educated but probably skillful, white Christians. People, in general, who’s thinking is…simple, shall we say.

Now, what is Peterson arguing?

He is setting up an argument for the ethical substance of the truth of Christianity.

So, why does he act like his argument is new? Like he just slammed the other dude?

Because his audience doesn’t know that we have known this for a long time. He is presenting this argument in the debate as though it is a new thing.

Why?

Well. I can’t really know if Peterson is being honest in his belief of his own wit and intelligence. But…

Isn’t it obvious?

check this out and then read the comments .

Peterson’s point is valid, but where he takes it (as we see everywhere) is just positing of a proper Order over everything and everyone. It is a “going backward and imposing” kind of reasoning as opposed to a “drawing back and applying” kind of reasoning, a “dictating by the Father” effort over a “understanding by the Son”, if we want to stay in that realm.